seantheman
Registered User
- Messages
- 932
I feel that this leaves the plan design element open to corruption.
In what way?
In it's simplest form, Here's €1000 if you secify our brand on your next 5 drawings
I've noticed on a lot of house plans lately,that architects are specifying certain brands eg Xtratherm, Kooltherm without adding (or similar rated product) I feel that this leaves the plan design element open to corruption.Thoughts please
They should usually state a particular brand "or similar".
The "or similar" is generally written as "or similar and approved" - it is not for the builder to wander off and say "ah sure this is good enough, they'll never notice the difference". As a term, it would be implied in any case. There needs to be a single point of responsibility for this type of thing because the reason it was specified in the first place may not be the usual reason for installing it.This is my gripe.I have no problem with Brand x (or similar rated product) being used. It's when a particular brand name is specified.Take for example if Kooltherm K3 50mm floorboard is spec'd, You could lay TF70 100mm for the same price and end up with far greater thermal qualities
That's not true - there have been obiter dicta by some judges on this point, I think they are mentioned in Keane's book. Planning Law doesn't concern itself with minutiae.Another is that unless you build exactly what's called up, technically you could be in breach of the planning permission.
That's not true - there have been obiter dicta by some judges on this point, I think they are mentioned in Keane's book. Planning Law doesn't concern itself with minutiae.
The only thing I have ever seen an architect getting out of specifying a given product are some pens, scale rulers and back in the heady days of mid 2000's the annual trip to the factory/showroom along with a meal afterwards.
No, I am relying on obiter dicta by Barron J in the Supreme Court decision of Smyth v Colgan [1999] 1 IR 548.The phrase you are relying on to suggest this is ...
You should tell that to the honourable judge.This may be poor advice to give in relation to any matter in Irish law, where people argue over the position of a fence and appeals have been taken for nothing more than the fact that someone could.
Barron J was in the Supreme Court, Murphy J (in Horne v Freeney) was speaking from the High Court.Ir that latter regard the honourable Judge might want to re-read some seminal work which suggests the permission is a matter that is whole and indivisable.
"In Horne v Freeney(1982/60MCA) the court took the view that planning permission is indivisible, that it authorises the carrying out of the totality of the works for which approval has been granted and not some of them only, and that a developer cannot at his election implement a part only of the approved plans as no approval is given for the part as distinct from the whole. This is of course is perfectlly logical and results in complete transparency as to what is the 'permitted development'. " - anon
Ergo if you do vary something you have specified in your permission you could be in breach of the permission.
This applies to interstitial materials involved in the contruction as much as to materials visually apparent from the public domain.
During the last two decades, certainly in the Dublin region permissions became increasingly more specific in relation to colours, brickwork and fenestration
I've noticed on a lot of house plans lately,that architects are specifying certain brands eg Xtratherm, Kooltherm without adding (or similar rated product) I feel that this leaves the plan design element open to corruption.Thoughts please
Indeed - and Murphy J was referring to relatively substantial changes to a permission in an environment where Building Regulations did not exist. Reducing the relevance of the authority.The judges were speaking on two different cases, on separate points of planning law at different time.
I don't see the relevance of this.Murphy J in relation to regulation could have made any order of the court that was not arbitrary and unreasonable - he didn't need to bolster planning law.
Planning use is granted for a particular location and cannot be relocated - shops cannot appear at roof level.
Murphy J couldn't ignore Section 4 (1) (g) of the Act, which allowed for internal changes but not relocation of use AFAIK.
Murphy J was aware of the Building Bye Laws, which operated in Dublin and Dun Laoghaire at that time and had done since the 1940's.
Murphy J would also have been mindful of the Fire Services Act 1981 which operated throughout the jurisdiction in the aftermath of the Stardust Disaster.
He would certainly have been aware of the the increasingly visible public role of the Fire Officers against cavalier landlords and developers carrying out unauthorssed development.
You don't see to grasp that Barron J has given the most relevant interpretation of law on the matter available - effectively he makes the law (google judge made law). If he says "meh" - then "meh" is the correct attitude to take.It you elect to construct a part of a permission and not do other parts you cannot claim compliance.
Whether or not a Supreme Court Judge decides to ignore it, you are in breach of the planning permission.
ONQ & Superman can have their own thread which could be interesting reading come bedtime for some
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?